Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> that leads us now to susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations who went on national television and said this attack in benghazi, libya, was probably because of this anti-muslim film. >> reporter: exactly. >> she had talking points, right? where did those talking points come from? did they come from petraeus and the cia, were they edited later by the white house, do we know? >> reporter: we don't know. you heard peter king was asked that specific question. according to him and some others, we still don't know exactly where the disconnect was, if you will, between what the intelligence community now says that they believed at the time and the talking points that ended up with susan rice that ended up on television that sunday afterwards. it still doesn't seem to be very clear. the reason why he is now the former cia director is because of the affair that david petraeus had. he resigned one week ago. the question is whether or not that would come up at all. he said it was addressed at the beginning and he regretted what happened and that they didn't really address it at all after
controversial coming out of these briefings, whether or not susan rice, the u.n. ambassador -- the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., had the proper information or was correct in what she said publicly about the attack being probably at that point four days after the attack because of a demonstration. democrats are really to a person coming to her defense aggressively and trying to explain why there was a discrepancy. listen to kent conrad of the democratic member of the senate health care community. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points that the intelligence committee had all signed off on. that is very, very clear. she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, so criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. that is very clear. >> and susan, dianne feinstein, just moments ago actually took out and read the unclassified talking points that susan rice used on that day, and they were very short. it sounds like there were two, maybe three points in the talking points, and it was almost certain to change.
with this term that could be fed to the public. susan rice said that this was what she was cleared to use when she spoke by television a few days after the attack. >> some people are calling this a cover-up, including white house aids of covering it up, someone removed the terror link from the talking points that was initially handed out. a did that happen, and if it did happen, why? >> how in this process of removing the specific names of these extremist groups including al qaeda affiliate, a local liberal group, was there any one individual or one agency that did this? this went through an interagency process in washington 1/2. it had to be signed off by various members of the white house, members of the nfc. the only words they changed along with the state department was changing the words to diplomatic facility in the -- from the mission. and so they had nothing to do with the intelligence assessment at all. so there's still some question of exactly where in this process that the names were changed to the more generic reference to terror. >> you're not in new york city, that skyline behind
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)